For those involved in marksmanship training and education, it is depressing to sift through the piles of nonsense dispensed by people with little shooting skill. Here’s an account from a run-in with your typical misinformed soldier.
>> And no, shooting is not shooting ….
Marksmanship fundamentals used to hit targets with a rifle in competition are the same marksmanship fundamentals used to hit targets with a rifle in the field. Being a simple, mechanical, internal combustion device, a firearm doesn’t “know” if it is being pointed at a target on the range, an animal in the woods or an enemy on the battlefield. A firearm will only place bullets based on where the barrel is pointed when the sear is released and the launched bullet clears the crown. It can be no other way.
Fundamental skills are the same. A rifle only points and launches bullets where pointed and will do so whether pointed at a target on the range or an enemy in the field.
Shooting is shooting. An attempt to misrepresent this inescapable truth is ignorant.
While all marksmanship skills are rooted in competition experience, modern sniping doctrine is very literally so. Arthur Terry, a Marine warrant officer running sniper training for the likes of Jim Land, Carlos Hathcock and others, derived sniping doctrine directly from competition shooting. Gunnery Terry’s cadre including a number of competitive shooting greats, including Olympian Arnold Vitarbo. Land is on record stating that the personnel credited with creating modern sniper doctrine were seasoned competitive shooters who took that experience and applied it to sniping. Anyone familiar with the format of conventional competition, especially the various team matches and Hearst Doubles events realizes the roots of sniping. Unfortunately, low level marksmen are often unaware of this influence. More on that here:
https://firearmusernetwork.com/2009/03/11/history-marksmanship-sniping-sniper-skills/
>> No amount of time on a range will ever prepare you for shooting in combat.
Then snipers and Marines/soldiers are screwed because the range is where they practice learning how to shoot as well. The only difference is that top competitive shooters have a higher standard of performance on the range needed to win matches than snipers need to qualify or pass their training.
>> Marksmanship has nothing to do with a gunfight.
Marksmanship is the ability to hit targets consistently and on purpose. If you believe such an ability has nothing to do with a gunfight, then you must believe there’s no need for an ability to hit your enemy consistently and on purpose.
Considering this thread started over snipers and competition shooters, if “marksmanship has nothing to do with a gunfight” how do you propose snipers or other soldiers/Marines be trained?
I believe military, law enforcement, hunters and gun owners are better served by being able to hit their foe, animal and/or target shot at with consistency. The ability to do that is marksmanship, and it can be learned and measured on the range and in competition.
>> Marksmanship teaches confidence in your weapon system. It shows you how your weapon functions, how it fires, what happens when you pull the trigger and that you can hit your target. But almost all of that goes to hell in a real world situation. You will not be able to control your breathing. You will not be able to get a good firing stance. Your sight picture won’t be perfect. It doesn’t matter how good you are on a range, none of that applies to a real world situation.
So, marksmanship training teaches how to hit targets but that training “goes to hell” in a real world situation. Does the confidence taught also go to hell? What other training also goes to hell in combat or under stress? Medical (first aid) skills? Radio use and communication? Driving/piloting? Parachuting? Should soldiers be able to hit targets at all real world, or just spray randomly as their training “goes to hell”?
>> Being on a range doesn’t teach you how to fight.
True. Physical fitness training doesn’t teach you how to fight, but being fit helps you fight better. Range training doesn’t teach everything needed about fighting, but an ability to hit targets more accurately and quickly helps you fight better.
>> Being on a range is not a substitute for being in combat.
It builds a skill (marksmanship) that can be used elsewhere. Most Soldiers and Marines aren’t particularly good at it because their standards in training are low and often taught by others of low marksmanship skill (Drill Sergeants, etc.) Soldiers leave training as poor marksmen and a stress situation like combat further degrades already poor skill levels, leading to a false conclusion that range training doesn’t work.
>> But there are just several things that are significantly more important in combat than what you learn on a range.
There are things that may be more important in combat than any form of weapon skill. A radio is arguably an Infantryman’s most powerful weapon. Plenty of other things that need to be trained. Hopefully, that training doesn’t also “go to hell.”
>> When under pressure in a combat situation, I can guarantee the snipers will perform better.
Then the pressure of a competitive match should pose no problem for them at all, you’d think…
In the end, I suggested this person write up his approach that would be better and twice offered to publish it on all the blogs I maintain and present it to my peers on the USAR Marksmanship Program. As a soldier with such a strong opinion and ideas of what “better” might be, he should have jumped at the chance. Well, I assume he’s a soldier because he claimed to be. Never did get his name, rank, shooting experience or skill because he never divulged any of that.
That is the real problem. Random, nameless non-shooters will complain about how studied marksmen with competitive shooting backgrounds suggest training be conducted but when given an opportunity to spell out their “better” ideas and methods nothing is forthcoming. The mantra seems to be, “I don’t have any solutions or ideas, but I’m happy to bitch about stuff I don’t understand and am too lazy to learn.”
David Bahde
Aug 01, 2013 @ 14:32:12
Nicely done!!
LikeLike
Elizabeth Waddell
Aug 01, 2013 @ 14:33:16
Lol how do you really feel?
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Aug 01, 2013 @ 14:34:33
>> Lol how do you really feel?
Better, now that the meds have kicked in.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Aug 02, 2013 @ 08:29:47
Very true! Thanks for adding this.
You might find this interesting as well:
https://firearmusernetwork.com/shooting-skill-snipers-vs-competition-shooters/
LikeLike
Paul Mazan
Aug 02, 2013 @ 08:27:45
If your readers would read books by and from actual snipers they might learn that McBride, WW1 Sniper and author of “A Rifleman Went to War” was a competitive shooter as was John George author of “Shots Fired in Anger.”
Hathcock was not only a former competitive shooter but also a winner of the Wimbledon Cup Long Range match at Camp Perry.
The list of competitive shooters that have gone on to become legends is long and should prove the point that to shoot well one must be trained to shoot well under pressure and Competitive shooting is the best tool we have available.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Aug 02, 2013 @ 10:55:52
Military and police trained personnel, as well as many gun owners, are rarely “practiced marksmen.” Their qualifications (police academy, basic training, CCW) are designed to be readily passed by complete novice shooters with a few days of instruction and practice administered by slightly less novice personnel often having no formal marksmanship background. Worse, these same novice-level standards will continue to “qualify” soldiers, police and CCW indefinitely.
This can be readily proved by a competent instructor teaching a complete novice to pass most public sector qualifications within an afternoon of one-on-one instruction and practice. If a complete novice can successfully pass such a course in one day then that course can not possibly be useful in determining if someone is “practiced.”
You mean the guys whose training program had significantly worse results than the much-maligned New York Police Department?
https://firearmusernetwork.com/point-shooting-vs-sight-shooting-handgun-training-effectiveness/
“Aimed, accurate fire (single or double action) has a definite place in police combat training. After bull’s-eye target accuracy is achieved, the police trainee should then be projected into practical police-type combat ranges, where he shoots at silhouettes under simulated conditions such as he may encounter during routing performance of his many and varied duties.”
– Rex Applegate, Kill or Get Killed
According to Applegate, first learn to shoot groups on bullseye targets. Once proficiency is demonstrated, progress to timed and scored scenario shoots. Sort of like USPSA, IPSC, IDPA, etc.
Yes, you should come to grips with reality. The reality is that no massed, public sector training program will ever create or enforce a standard of performance high enough to maintain practiced marksmen. Such minimal training, regardless of method, will always yield substandard results and the method/means of instruction almost doesn’t matter.
Here’s the John Veit approved method:
https://firearmusernetwork.com/aimed-point-and-shoot-training-methods/
Aimed Point and Shoot Live Fire Training
How To Learn Point Shooting
Apparently, you believe this will transform all handgun-carrying personnel into gunfighters with can’t-miss accuracy. There isn’t even a time standard.
This is an even lower standard than the low standards used now.
The real problem is no public sector program is willing to expend the resources to truly drive skill levels up and most don’t have the personnel capable of doing so. How we choose to hold the gun or use (or don’t use) the sights almost doesn’t matter.
LikeLike
John VEit
Aug 02, 2013 @ 10:23:27
If it is true that measuring performance is a means of gauging the effectiveness of something, then results achieved should be a true indicator of the viability of this or that.
For example, if practiced marksmanship results in good hits on a target, as measured by hits and misses, then it would be fair to say that practiced marksmanship is an effective means of shooting.
And practiced marksmanship shooters who meet qualification standards employing measurements, could be labeled as practiced marksmen.
Now then, if practiced marksmen miss more than 80% of the time in life or death close quarters competitions as measured by AARs, would it also be fair to say that practiced marksmanship is not an effective means of shooting?
Fairbairn and Sykes, in their book: Shooting To Live With The One Hand Gun (1942), had this to say about target shooting versus gun fighting.
“Target shooting has its place and we have no quarrel with it…There probably will be a quarrel, however, when we go on to say that beyond helping to teach care in the handling of fire-arms, target shooting is of no value whatever in learning the use of the pistol as a weapon of combat.
“The two things are as different from each other as chalk from cheese, and what has been learned from target shooting is best unlearned if proficiency is desired in the use of the pistol under actual fighting conditions.”
And Rex Applegate, in his book: Kill or Get Killed 1943, said this about target shooting versus gun fighting.
“Visualize the first-class target shot in the following combat situation: It is dark, he is in an alley, a poorly lighted street, or a room in a building. He can hardly see his gun at arm’s length, to say nothing of the sights. His muscles are tense, his nerves keyed up to a fighting pitch.
“Suddenly the enemy starts shooting at him from an unexpected quarter.
“Even if he could see the sights, would he take the time to line them up and fire at the enemy’s gun flash? Does he take up the trigger slack and squeeze off the shot as he has been taught to do in target shooting?
“Will he make sure that his feet are properly positioned and that he is breathing correctly? He certainly will not! He will grip his gun convulsively, raise it, point or shove it in the general direction of the enemy, and pull (not squeeze) the trigger.
“…In daylight he will do exactly the same thing….
“It is a matter of record that the average hand gun shooting affray takes place at a distance not exceeding 20 feet…Any distance not exceeding 40 feet can be considered as Close Quarters in the combat use of the pistol or revolver. Beyond that distance the capabilities of the average individual and of the weapon show a marked decline.
“…By proper training at combat ranges, man-killing accuracy, without the use of sights and with extreme speed, can be acquired by the average soldier or Police Officer. This can be done in less time, and with less expenditure of ammunition, than is required to become even a fair target shot.”
……….
Both books were published on the US Marine web site as Fleet Marine Force Reference Publications –
Fleet MarineForce Reference Publication (FMFRP) 12-81, Shooting To Live With The One-Hand Gun
Fleet MarineForce Reference Publication (FMFRP) 12-80, Kill or Get Killed
They are still available for free on the web.
Also, see http://www.pointshooting.com/1835.htm for an article on an 1835 book on self defense that discusses competition and combat shooting, and which also provides instruction on how to shoot a firearm in a life threat situation.
……….
This debate has been going on since at least 1835, and I expect that it will continue until true believer zealots come to grips with reality, and accept the fact that the CQB hit rate is less than 20%.
That is the fact of the matter, and it has been so, since stats have been compiled. (Check out the SOP 9.)
The bottom line is that traditional marksmanship shooting, which most all Police are trained in, is just not effective in CQ life or death competitions.
And what does one do at night or in bad light?
IMHO, best to learn an alternate and effective method of shooting with “the one hand gun”.
……….
As to rifle shooting, I was an expert with an M-1 so I know that marksmanship is effective on the range.
I also have shot strings of aerials (up to 10 in a row), with an airsoft pistol at 6 to 10 feet, so I know there just is no time to use traditional marksmanship if you want to hit such targets. But they can be hit using a simple, natural, and effective alternative method of shooting.
LikeLike
Colorado Pete
Aug 02, 2013 @ 12:50:02
One problem I notice among military/police members is that if they had little or no prior experience with firearms prior to their employer’s training, once they’ve gone through that training they think they know everything, and that they shoot well just because they qualified. Most have never competed nor have any idea just how challenging competitive courses of fire can be, nor how well top shooters can perform.
Also many have never hunted. Deer hunting offers ideal experience at trying to hit a small, cagey, possibly moving target, that goes in and out of cover, offering only fleeting chances at a shot from a field expedient position. Plus, “buck fever” adds in some distraction.
Hunting is a good exercise in taking the “range training” and adapting/applying it to the real world.
Lack of knowledge and experience generates such attitudes.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Aug 02, 2013 @ 14:19:22
>> One problem I notice among military/police members is that if they had little or no prior experience with firearms prior to their employer’s training, once they’ve gone through that training they think they know everything, and that they shoot well just because they qualified. Most have never competed nor have any idea just how challenging competitive courses of fire can be, nor how well top shooters can perform. Lack of knowledge and experience generates such attitudes.
A perfect summation.
LikeLike
John Veit
Aug 02, 2013 @ 19:59:40
“Yes, you should come to grips with reality. The reality is that no massed, public sector training program will ever create or enforce a standard of performance high enough to maintain practiced marksmen. Such minimal training, regardless of method, will always yield substandard results and the method/means of instruction almost doesn’t matter.”
Point well made, and supports my thinking that guns should not be in the hands of anyone who has not passed at least a shoot qual used by their local police. Even such a substandard measure would be better than trusting in no training and no measure of the shooting effectiveness of those who purchase a handgun for self defense use.
Not requiring someone to pass a qual as a minimum requirement for gun ownership, is sort of like selling dynamite and fuses to wantabe miners with no strings attached. Good for the dynamite and fuse makers, but not so good for those who live near by the wantabies.
Ditto for those who buy a gun in hopes that it will keep them safe from harm..
But that subject area is a different can of worms.
……….
What remains is the undisputed fact that competition produces “practiced marksmen” whose results are better than those of less practice, or something close to that.
The rub is that there is no evidence that in close quarters combat, a “practiced marksmen’s” (read competition tested), results are better or worse than the results of other shooters.
Even the SOP 9 tried to connect range results with on-the-street results, and was not able to establish that.
If it was provable, I would expect every Police Union and fraternal organization to demand and even bring action against any Police agenncy that did not fullyl fund any and all resonable participation in competition shoots on behalf of its members.
Requiring participation in competitions as a continuation of employent criteria, would be reasonable as well.
What is bizarre is the OK attitude of those in the gun world with the miss rate of 80+% in real life or death competitions, which is a material component of the past and continuing cost in Police officers lives. The death rate for years has been, and continues to be a Police officer shot and killed ever 3 days or so.
……….
At to knocking Fairbairn, Sykes, and Applegate, that’s OK.
Fairbairn and Sykes kill ratio was very good, but short on documentation, unless you just want to believe some higly regarded British cops.
And Applegate didn’t present any data on the shooting effectiveness of his troop trainees.
Why shouold we believe anyone who doesn’t have combat stats to back up their claims???
We do have combat stats on what doesn’t work, but none on what does.
That is a stange kettle of fish, given that we have had over 100 years to gather up data on what does and what doen’t work.
Hey, I m not in charge, so don’t shoot me, OK?
………..
As to “my” shooting method and the others mentioned, I think the first was P&S which works fine with stationary and moving targets, even aerials. :-)
The others were alla Fairbairn/Sykes, Applegate and Quick Kill.
I have resevations about theos other methodsmyself, but if they can produce Close Quarter results that are equivelent or better than those achieved using traditional marksmanship, but without having to jump through the required hoops of traditional marksmanship, I say why not.
Or at least why not add them to your toolbox of life saving tools? If a world class comp shooter is not along side you as your backup in a dire straights situation, that could be your life saver.
……….
Lastly John, Thanks for reminding me that one should never “say” anything on the internet that they never ever want quoted or used against them. :-)
In my case, most of my claims can be proved or disproved easily by anyone with half a brain and a little common sense.
LikeLike
Mike Davis
Aug 08, 2013 @ 08:28:52
Do we have any combat effectiveness data on the men that Hathcock and Land trained or those trained based on their methods? Yes we do. Was the training effective in the Jungles of Vietnam, the deserts of the middle east and various other hell holes throughout the world? Yes it was.
My CCW class many years ago was taught by a local police firearms instructor. His method included point and aimed shooting. His standard of qualification was a 90% score (not 90% hits) on PPC type targets in timed exercises at ranges of 3 yards to 25 yards.
As an aside that instructor was also a double distinguished Marine rifleman,marksmanship instructor and competitive shooter.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Aug 08, 2013 @ 15:16:59
Thanks, Mike!
Lesson learned: Skilled shooters, as proven by their successful, measured results in organized marksmanship events, tend to enjoy successful results in the field for themselves and their students.
LikeLike